I’m somewhat of a professional troll of politicians’ social media posts.
Like, all of them. No specific side. And by troll, I mean I find joy in pointing out where they’re outright lying or misrepresenting the facts. I prefer a healthy debate to insults, which apparently not everyone subscribes to!
Because of that, I’ve been diagnosed with a terminal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome by conservatives time and time again.
The interesting thing is, I’ll make a factual statement, cite a source, and then get diagnosed with TDS like I’m making stuff up out of the blue just to hate on Trump and his followers.
To be sure, there are people out there who hate Trump just because they hate Trump. They don’t really know why, other than someone they follow told them to. They really can’t name a single specific thing they dislike that’s he’s done. They just:
Those people represent a small, small portion of those of us who don’t approve of Trump. Most of us have our reasons. Most of us have many reasons.
Today I wanted to list out my reasons and vent some frustration. There will be facts, but there will also be this.
Buckle up, friends!
Top 5 Reasons I Hate Trump
Notice I used the word “hate”. Hate is a strong word, and trust me when I say I don’t use it lightly. Up until his actions in the first year of his second term, I simply disliked him. I thought he was an arrogant ass who preyed on people’s feelings of oppression and postured himself as the one who could fix it all, despite him only being out for himself, his family and his buddies.
After 2025 and what’s been done in 2026, I hate him. I hate him with every fiber of my being, like, hate that I’ve never felt before. I hate him because he’s used rhetoric to intentionally divide the nation. Intentionally make people who don’t know any better fear their black and brown neighbors. Intentionally created a movement that attacks Islam as a religion and makes all Muslims out to be terrorists. Intentionally gutted the government, replacing brilliant leaders with loyalists who wouldn’t oppose him regardless of what he does.
Now for the facts that go along with my thoughts:
Reason 1: Vilifying the Non-White Person
Trump has repeatedly made it clear how he feels about immigrants. Here’s a sample of his statements on the subject of immigrants:
- Unauthorized immigrants are:
- criminals (rarely true)
- snakes that bite (what the f***)
- eating pets (not true)
- coming from jails and mental institutions (extremely rarely true)
- causing crime in sanctuary cities (not true)
- killing Americans en masse (absolutely not true)
- stealing American’s public benefits (not even possible)
- stealing American’s jobs (um, the ones we are ‘too good for’??)
Here’s a direct quote:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.”
This is a message he REPEATS. CONSTANTLY. Even though statistics going back to 1870 show immigrants commit LESS crime than their native-born peers.
For more on how Trump feels about immigrants, check out this article from the Marshall Project: Fact-checking Trump’s Quotes About Immigrants | The Marshall Project
On Somalians: “They contribute nothing. The welfare is like 88% or something. They contribute nothing. I don’t want them in our country; their country is no good for a reason. Your country stinks and we don’t want them in our country.”
This, despite showing Somalians work at a rate of 72% in Minnesota, where the majority of Somalians are centralized. WHICH IS MORE THAN MINNESOTANS AS A WHOLE.
I hate that people who don’t have the internet literacy to confirm these facts have it thrown at them so often by Trump and the media that they believe it. They believe they should be scared of the “illegal boogieman” coming to take their kids in the night. Not only that, but they believe ALL brown people are illegal (somehow) and thus should be feared and chased out of society. Or that even the legal ones should be stripped of their status and sent home because they’re some sort of ticking time bomb.
Reason 2: He’s a Gosh Darn Felon
I literally cannot understand how someone with 34 counts on a felony conviction (CONVICTION! Not Charges!) is sitting in the Oval Office. I’ve read people claiming that he was wrongfully convicted by a biased court. Which is big, if true, but here is a timeline of all the charges Trump has faced that point to not a single incident, but a lifetime pattern, starting with his most recent indictments:
- Willful Retention of National Defense Information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e))
- Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice (18 U.S.C. §1512(k))
- Withholding a Document or Record (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A), 2)
- Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(1), 2)
- Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation (18 U.S.C. §§ 1519, 2)
- Scheme to Conceal (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(1), 2)
- False Statements and Representations (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 2)
- Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree (N.Y. Penal §175.10)
- Violation of GA RICO (O.C.G.A. §16-14-4(c)
- Conspiracy to Commit False Statements and Writings (O.C.G.A. §16-4-8 and O.C.G.A. §16-10-20)
- Conspiracy to Commit Forgery in the First Degree (O.C.G.A. §16-4-8 and O.C.G.A. §16-9-1(b))
- Conspiracy to Committ Filing False Documents (O.C.G.A. §16-4-8 and O.C.G.A. §16-10-20.1(b)(1))
- Filing False Documents (O.C.G.A. §16-10-20.1(b)(1))
- False Statements and Writings (O.C.G.A. §16-10-20)
- Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 USC §371)
- Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding (18 USC §1512(k))
- Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding (18 USC §1512(c)(2), 2)
- Conspiracy Against Rights (18 USC §241)
Again, those are just the last four indictments for activity immediately prior to his first term forward. Going back farther:
- He was forced to pay $25M in settlement for his fraudulent “Trump University“
- He was brought up in 1973 by the DOJ on charges of violating the Fair Housing Act, denying apartments to black folks but renting them happily to white ones
- He paid $750,000 in 1988 for violating the antitrust law
- His casino was found guilty of circumventing state regulations when Trump’s father bought $3.5M in chips with no plans to gamble
- He was found liable by the SEC for making fraudulent claims about earnings via his casino in 2001
- He has consistently failed to pay contractors for his business developments and campaign costs. Some examples of what he’s left unpaid:
- $83,600 in cabinetry and furniture for his casino
- $840,000 to various city governments for campaign security including in the State of Minnesota
- ~$5,000,000 in liens for his hotel
Oh, and here’s a big one so I’m going to put it as a header:
TRUMP WAS FOUND LIABLE FOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF E. JEAN CARROLL
I don’t CARE that it was a civil charge. IT’S A SEXUAL ABUSE CHARGE AND THE F*CKING PRESIDENT IS A PREDATOR.
The fact that Trump ran on law and order and representing “the little guy” is astonishing to me. The fact that people believe it is even more astonishing. How can a man who is constantly charged with and found liable for crimes, including the crime of not paying “the little guy” for doing work he hired them to do, really give a single iota of a shit about law and order? I could care less that most of his crimes are white collar. Crime is crime and a criminal is a criminal. Trump is a criminal..and a rapist.
Literally the only reason Trump is not in prison right now is because he’s in office.
Reason 3: He Uses God as a Weapon
I received the book “God and Country” as a gag gift this Christmas. Thanks, Grandma!
I read as much of it as I could physically handle. The author is an Evangelical Christian writing about how Trump is the next best thing since sliced bread. Interestingly, I learned that ~50% of Republican voters are Evangelical Christians. Naturally, Trump made it a point to win their vote. The author goes out of his way to say “Trump isn’t perfect, but who among us is?” to justify Trump’s historical abuse of women, crimes, etc. etc.
I think Trump is as much a Christian as I am a salamander.
I can’t square how a man who wants to cut funding to programs that feed the poor, heal the sick and clothe the naked can pass himself off as a Christian. The man makes a living being a hateful, spiteful shithead, which is exactly the opposite of Christ’s teachings of love, acceptance and charity.
Here is a great post about him absolutely not understanding the religion he purports to follow: Ten Years of Trump Misunderstanding the Gospel – The Gospel Coalition | Australia
His misrepresentation of Christianity is making the rest of us actual Christians look like total and utter assholes to the rest of the world.
Basically, we look like this:
Reason 4: He’s Turned the US Into a Joke on the World Stage
Imagine, if you will, that you were someone from the outside in looking at America and seeing things like this from our leadership:
Listen, the world already thinks of America as basically Florida but everywhere. The first two pictures of our leaders looking like 1. weird, machismo meth-heads (the first), and 2. the equivalent of the video I posted above about alt-right religions (the second). The third image is from the time Vance made an absolutely insane comment about a man whose country was at WAR not wearing a nice enough outfit to bask in the (possibly sleeping) glory that is Trump.
Other countries have noticed. It’s not a secret. Here’s some highlights from a recent Reddit post that asked people outside the U.S. how they see us right now:
Hurts, doesn’t it?
This is a direct result of how Trump has made us look. He’s an awful diplomat, lacks any sense of decorum or professional courtesy, and routinely offends other country’s leaders. Why would NATO want to come to the aid of a country that’s been mocking them, imposing unfair tariffs, and meddling in things we have no business in?
Reason 5: He’s Not Actually CHANGING Anything
Today’s post showed that Trump has done NO BETTER than any previous administration on the economy. Obama ALSO deported a shit ton of immigrants, and he somehow managed to do it with ZERO CIVILIAN CASUALTIES. Yes, people died in detention. That’s awful and should have never happened. Obama never announced he was sending 3000 masked agents into a sanctuary city with no clear goal other than to round up brown people.
All on the guise of caring about our welfare fraud. Fraud, hilariously, is something he CONTINUES TO BE CHARGED WITH. As far as the average Joe’s concerns go, he isn’t changing anything for us. I paid into taxes for the first time this year, despite my income staying the same, and despite paying 50% tax on my year-end bonus.
To me, none of this bullshit is any kind of worth the price.
Other Reasons but I’m out of time to elaborate
Short list of other reasons I dislike Trump, his agenda and his politics:
- He continues to undermine trust in elections despite there being no evidence of wide-spread fraud. Sources:
- He vilifies and blames Democrats for literally everything – he could trip on a sidewalk crack and he’d blame the dems. Examples:
- He refuses to condemn Congressmen Ogles and Fine on being OPENLY Islamophobic. See:
- He absolutely does not respect women. Sources:
- His policies have removed protections from trans and other LGBTQ+ folks
- His choices for cabinet members and leaders of high offices are not based on merit, but on loyalty
Conclusion
So there, be it never said that I hate Trump for no good reason. Those are my reasons, and I do feel passionately about them.
Rant, over.
Interesting. You admit to having TDS (an irrational hatred of someone) and then attempt to rationalize it by presenting “facts” seen through that tragically clouded lens. Seen from my non-TDS perspective, you’ve simply proven your self-diagnosis.
I’m obviously not going to take the time or electrons to debunk 95% of your “facts,” though I have quickly done some of it in my head. I appreciate you letting us into yours. Now I am far less puzzled by your other comments.
What about my post is not a fact? There’s a citation for every source, and if I misses one I’m happy to let you know.
I’d really appreciate if you’d take the time to try to debunk me, because I do a lot of digging and consideration to form my opinions as I suspect you do. Enlighten me to your hallowed wisdom.
He won’t, Hannah, because he can’t. It’s why I seldom engage anymore with those in the cult. And it is a cult. You laid out succinctly why you oppose the child rapist and grifter, yet all Jerry can do is reply with his condescension about your “tragically clouded lens,” in much the same way he dismissed a previous post of yours with, “Excuse me while I sort of giggle into my elbow.” He offers nothing of substance to the discussion. When challenged to defend his statements, he can’t.
I can understand people being hoodwinked the first time around and voting for Trump because they felt he was some sort of outsider savior who was going to bring his expertise to the matter, because, as he claimed, “Only I fix it.” It didn’t matter that he had filed for bankruptcy protection more than half a dozen times. It didn’t matter that his university was shuttered and ordered to pay $25 million in damages.
He’s much less a businessman than he is a fraudster. Recall how, when running for president in 2016, he held a fundraiser for his bogus charity, claiming the money would go to veterans. It didn’t. Nearly $3 million went into his campaign. The charity was fined $2 million and ordered closed.
His grifting is off the charts now as he sells out our country for his personal gain. He stripped the country of crypto oversight and enforcement before launching his own crypto scam, raking in billions from foreign governments seeking to influence US policy in ways that favor them at our expense. This is how authoritarians operate.
He’s pardoned fraudsters who owe billions, freeing them from prison and eliminating their obligations to pay back their victims, while accepting huge payoffs from those he freed.
He’s thrown millions off of much-needed government assistance while terminating pediatric cancer research, research for Alzheimer’s, and a bevy of other government-funded research programs that benefit us all, and why? So he could extend tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy, corporations, and most notably, himself.
The war in Iran will cost us, our children, and their offspring untold trillions by the time it’s over if it runs the same course as previous wars by Republican administrations have cost us. But yet there’s no money for the Affordable Care Act, schools, infrastructure improvements, and renewable energy jobs. But we get more war. More god damned fuckng wars that result in a zero net gain for us as a nation, unless you’re a defense contractor.
I’ll never understand how his attack on our nation’s Capitol on January 6th, 2021, wasn’t a deal-breaker for the entire country. Only a cult leader could pull that off.
And I’ll never understand how his raping of little girls isn’t a deal-breaker today. Yet, here we are as Christians throughout the country praise this evilness. The following video is disturbing, but it’s important to see. I believe this woman.
We’ve abandoned our closest allies in favor of what? A better relationship with Putin? I can only imagine the kompromat Putin has on him. I expect Putin to release whatever he has once Trump is dead (hopefully, soon), as a way of showing us who held the actual power.
Your TDS nonsense is tiring, Jerry. Get a clue.
We’re about to go through some things as a country.
Sorry, I made the mistake of NOT subscribing to new comments [how do I do that?], and now I am glad I didn’t. I will not dignify those comments with a response, because while I believe TDS exists, I have no intention nor even ability to try to reason against it.
Yours is a fair request, though, and while I don’t have time for a thorough review of your (as usual) lengthy and seemingly reasonable post, let me do this much, taking your first “point”, where I believe your point is that Trump is a racist and a liar:
Looking at this, I was struck once again by discussion with a woman at church (we used to lead a “current events” discussion together) and she reminded me of something that has bothered me for years, the notion that “there is no truth; it’s all in how you look at things.” I don’t want to believe it, but I keep seeing it. You claim truth, but???
Jerry,
You’re correct, in a very small percentage of immigrants, these problems exist. They don’t in every case though, which is what Trump wants his followers to believe. Not all immigrants are insane criminals – most undocumented individuals literally just want a better life and think America can offer it to them.
Sure, and I have worked with some of these people who have been here a long time, worked hard and stayed out of trouble. I’ve even suggested to my congressman a way in which they could become legal and be absolved of the MANY incidental crimes they commit just by being here. But this new lot– the Biden’s open borders gang– are NOT entitled to a “better life” just because somebody offered it to them, with no thought for what was legal, right, and helpful. And please, let us distinguish between “immigrants” and ILLEGAL immigrants. They’re certainly not “neighbors” as Walz and ilk like to say.
Jerry I am so sick of the ridiculous allegations about open borders. At no time during Biden’s (or Clinton’s for that matter) presidency was there a border policy that allowed free access without documentation to anyone entering the United States. I know this because my family & I have passports & have travelled out of the country & back during this time period.
I agree with Kevin on this. He won’t because he can’t. Where I part ways with Kevin is that I will engage with anybody. I believe meaningful discussions are possible BECAUSE people are willing to step outside of their sphere of people who agree with them & actively engage with those who are in opposition.
This response is addressed 1st to Jerry & 2nd to Hannah:
Jerry.
Interesting. Hannah has not admitted to any such thing. How can you (presumably with a straight face) say that she has. She did say that she hates Trump but she has not conceded that her hatred of him is irrational. Hence, your diagnosis of “TDS” does not apply (never-mind that the term is ridiculous to begin with). In fact, I propose a new definition to the term TDS: Trump-Deluded Sycophant. And I do think someone in this discussion (not saying who) fits that definition.
As usual, you are woefully lacking in “facts” of your own or anything that could possibly back up any of your generalizations. You accuse Hannah of “presenting ‘facts’ seen through that tragically clouded lens” but then completely fail to explain how her lens is clouded. Without backing up such a bold claim, you’ve proven nothing. You then go on to say that you’re “not going to take the time or electrons to debunk 95% of” her facts. That, Jerry, is simply a cop out.
I could just say ‘put up or shut up’ but I believe in your right to say your piece (&, consequently, your right to continually prove that you have absolutely nothing to back up anything you say). So instead, I’ll just follow with words from someone who undoubtedly must have been a hero of yours: Prove me wrong.
Hannah.
Ironic as this may seem to you, Jerry’s accusation of TDS (irrational hatred of Trump) is not entirely without merit. Let me explain. So many people on my (& I believe your) side of the political divide focus way too much on Trump. They all lament that he is responsible for all of the ills we are facing & they all dream of the day when he is gone so that we can all get back to normal. If you think about it, this mindset really is delusional. We haven’t been normal since long before Trump came into power.
The fact is Trump is a pathetic little toad who, let’s face it, is just way too stupid to have orchestrated any of the destruction his regime has caused. The real culprits who are deserving of hatred are the ones who conspired to put Trump into power in the first place & who continue to enable this despotic “reign” of error. I am, of course, referring to the Greedy Oligarchs & Plutocrats who have been slowly & deliberately dismantling our democracy for decades. They are the ones who have been actively brainwashing Americans through ever growing media empires & message manipulating propaganda machines & who have been systematically dismantling the safeguards that were put into place to prevent such a one-sided takeover of our democracy.
Ladies & gentlemen (& Jerry), I give you the Republican Party & its string-pullers. It is the Republican Party, together with Fox (so-called) News, LiesMax (oops … I mean Newsmax), One America Lies (oops … I mean One America News) & the rest of the Republican lie machine, who have succeeded in creating an alternate reality that far too many Americans have fallen into. In short, the dumbing down of America is proceeding on schedule. And without the coordinated influence of the Republican Party & its string-pullers, we would not be in the absolute mess that we are in today. So, if you want to hate someone, focus your attention on those who have been orchestrating this fascism that we find ourselves in for decades.
-John
Holy buckets! Lots to unpack here, but I’ll try to stay in the TDS lane for my comment.
I certainly would rather spend the weekend with Bill Clinton or Barack Obama than Donald Trump, and you certainly are free to hate anyone for whatever reason(s) you choose, or for no reason at all for that matter. I don’t know what the definition of TDS is, but I suspect it looks a lot like using a different standard to judge Trump than you would people who support your perspective.
It is said that Trump’s supporters take him seriously while his opponents take him literally. He is a bombastic and egotistical bully. If you read his book, The Art of the Deal, you know that he uses exaggeration to improve his bargaining position.
Using your examples of his statements on the subject of immigrants: “Unauthorized immigrants are: criminals, coming from jails and mental institutions, causing crime in sanctuary cities, killing Americans en masse, stealing American’s public benefits, stealing American’s jobs” Literally every one of these statements has some degree of truth. He exaggerates their primacy to rile up his base but also to bait his rivals who too often fall for his trap. It brings to mind the saying “Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.”
That said, I don’t think hating him for this is TDS unless you would deploy a different standard for exaggerations and/or lies from someone who says things that support your perspective. I think if you were to self-diagnose for TDS you would ask yourself, “Do I hold a similar dislike for Tim Walz because of his lies and exaggerations or does he get a pass because his statements support my perspective?”
I have a lifelong fear of being accused of something I did not do. I don’t recall any childhood trauma that brought this on but it has been with me my whole life. I can barely watch movies where a person is imprisoned for something they didn’t do. Yes, I should probably seek help for this disorder. I tell you this as a prolog to my stomach-turning reaction to the whole “Trump is a rapist” line of thought.
In my mind the E. Jean Carroll trial is a litmus test for TDS. Imagine a woman accuses your husband of sexually assaulting her decades ago. In spite of the fact that this event was to have happened in a very public place, she offers no proof or witnesses, only the testimony of a couple of friends she claims to have told about it at the time. Even her diary is void of any reference to it happening. Do you believe your husband or the woman? Does your husband have to prove he DIDN’T do it for you to believe him? If he loses the civil trial, do you call him a rapist?
There is a reason this was a civil trial. In a criminal trial the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To even bring charges, prosecutors would have to present some form of proof that a crime has taken place. In a civil trial the standard is “more likely than not” (I.E. 51%). As such, its belief based, not fact based. Calling Trump a rapist because nine New Yorkers believed something to be more likely than not true does not make it a fact. I can probably find nine people that believe the earth is flat, still won’t make it a fact.
As an aside, I wonder if TDS will transfer to another villain in 1034 days or if it just goes away when Trump leaves office.
Lol, I would also love to spend a weekend with Clinton or Obama. Hands down!
I also understand the fear of being accused of something I didn’t do. That’s a nightmare scenario. The fact is, Trump has repeatedly and often talked about how he has so much power of women and can do whatever he wants. If there is no hard evidence, making a running joke of the fact that you can just “grab a woman by the p—y” is not going to serve you well in a civil or criminal court.
Imagine if you had been accused of the same. Do you loudly and publicly brag to anyone who will listen about how you walk into women’s dressing rooms and beauty pageants? If not, I’d bet your circumstantial evidence would look a whole lot different than Trump’s!
I really, really hope this all ends when Trump leaves often. If we can elect a moderate candidate who knows how to talk across the lines, rather than post things like “Now with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy American has is the Radical Left, Highly Incompetent, Democratic Party! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT”. I think if we find someone like that, NOT Newsom, we will see a more reasonable response.
As a TDS litmus test: When you consider the Monica Lewinsky story, do you count Bill Clinton as a rapist?
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but Lewinsky has maintained that their relationship was consensual, despite his station influencing her decision to move forward with the relationship.
I do think Bill has some questionable sexual habits, incidentally, showing up in the Epstein Files right alongside Trump. That alone does not indicate complicity in a crime, of course. Carroll has claimed sexual abuse, and it was vindicated in court. Lewinsky has not claimed non-consensual sexual activity took place.
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/bill-clinton-sexual-assault-misconduct-allegations-names-dates-bb4a7a
Reading these and doing a quick check, Clinton settled a civil suit with Paula Jones with the allegation he propositioned her and exposed himself.
He never touched her from what I can read, but that with the amount of additional evidence that pointed out, makes me think he’s at the very least a sex pest, possibly a rapist.
If he could run again, BET I’d be making a huge deal of that! I wasn’t aware of all the cases, thank you for pointing them out.
Do you believe, as I do, that there is a huge double standard regarding sexual improprieties dependent on whether the accused is a Republican or Democrat? Many (rarely heard) allegations against Joe Biden, for example.
Jerry the only double standard at play here is the one that Republicans have been trying to get away with for decades. Remember Monica Lewinsky? At least she was of age & a voluntary participant (unlike multitudes of Trump’s victims) but that didn’t stop the Republicans from effectively hobbling Bill Clinton’s administration with all of the scandalmongering & congressional hearings. Just more proof (IMHO) that no one whines like a Republican when the narrative doesn’t go EXACTLY the way they want to frame it.
Again, apparently, I did not “subscribe” to new comments and thus have missed (THANKFULLY) much of this discussion. But Hannah you at least make a comment worthy of a reply. “I really, really hope this all ends when Trump leaves often [sic]. If we can elect a moderate candidate who knows how to talk across the lines,…”
Aha! Proof of TDS. How much of “this all” is caused by the (clearly irrational, IMHO) opposition to everything Trump does or says? What would a “moderate” who governs rationally (not ideologically) do differently? Would Democrats cooperate with ANY Republican, “moderate” or otherwise, any more than they do today with Trump?
Let me cite a glaring example of what I mean. Trump’s SOTU question was “The purpose of the United States government is to protect the American people, not illegal immigrants. If you agree, please stand.” Democrats sat on their hands. Who are the “deranged” here?
Jerry I would’ve sat on my hands too. The statement in quotes is patently false. Read the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights absolutely guarantees legal protections for all persons within U.S. borders, regardless of their citizenship or immigration status.
Except we are not talking about the Bill of Rights. That applies to CITIZENS. Immigrants are subject to immigration law, or should be. Would you stand for the opposite proposition, that the purpose of government is to protect illegal immigrants? It’s a binary choice.
Y’know Jerry, I want you to know that I actually had to edit this reply in order to tone down my rhetoric. I did so because I’m trying (not without difficulty) to not be too combative with you so that we can have a thoughtful & productive conversation. Believe me, I could have been a lot less kind. So with that said, here’s why you are wrong & why I am correct when I say that Constitutional protections apply to all PERSONS (or PEOPLE) within U.S. jurisdiction (not just all citizens):
(NOTE: Some words will be in ALL CAPS but that doesn’t mean I’m yelling at you. Rather, it’s just a way to put emphasis on specific words within the limitations of this platform)
AMENDMENT 4:
“The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the PERSONS or things to be seized.”
AMENDMENT 5:
“No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
And let’s not forget AMENDMENT 14, which specifically states that the government shall not “deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
These Amendments explicitly use the terms “PERSON” & “PEOPLE” rather than “citizen” regarding due process and equal protection. This ensures fundamental rights, such as fair legal treatment & freedom from unlawful deprivation of life, liberty, or property, extend to everyone on U.S. soil. More to the point, the words “PERSONS” & “PEOPLE” are deliberately used in order to ensure that protections apply to both citizens & non citizens. It s NOT, as you say, “a binary choice.”
-John
I will appreciate your restraint, as well as your belligerent insistence of your ability to correctly interpret the intent of the Founders, a job historically and most reasonably left to the Supreme Court. Your belief that the the words “PEOPLE” and “PERSON” are all inclusive, rather than including only US citizens, is… pick your own word… but is your OPINION. And whatever rights may exist for non-citizens is constrained by immigration law, something that was completely unknown and unneeded when the Constitution was written. And the 14th Amendment did not change that for the current wave of “invaders,” the most polite term I can think of. And that is what is before the Court now. I don’t know how that will come out, but I have a preference.
That aside, I am clueless as to WHY you would even argue the point of to whom the Constitution applies. For what purpose would you want 10-20 million unvetted and potentially dangerous (from mild to deadly) “invaders” in our country? If current law says those “illegally present” should be deported, why should the law not be followed?
Fine. Since you don’t accept my “belligerent insistence” of my “ability to correctly interpret the intent of the Founders” I will, as you suggest, defer to the Supreme Court of the United States. Let’s take a look at what SCOTUS has traditionally had to say on the matter. It turns out that, for about 150 years now, SCOTUS has consistently upheld held that the constitutional terms “PERSON” and “PEOPLE” include non-citizens within the United States. The following are the landmark cases establishing these protections:
· Protections for “Persons”:
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886): In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is universal in its application to “all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality”. The case involved Chinese nationals who were not U.S. citizens.
Plyler v. Doe (1982): The Court struck down a Texas law that denied public education to undocumented children. It explicitly held that undocumented immigrants are “people in any ordinary sense of the term” and are afforded protections under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Mathews v. Diaz (1976): The Court affirmed that the Fifth Amendment protects every “person” within the jurisdiction of the United States—including millions of non-citizens—from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
· Protections for “The People”:
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990): The Court analyzed the Fourth Amendment’s reference to “the people,” concluding it refers to individuals who are part of a “national community” or have “substantial connections” to the United States.
· Recent Developments:
April 2025 Ruling: The Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that the fundamental right to due process extends to everyone in America, regardless of legal status, while deliberating on legal processes required before removal.
Habeas Corpus: The Court recently reaffirmed that non-citizens have a fundamental right to challenge their detention through habeas corpus.
See, Jerry? Not just my opinion. It’s the opinion of SCOTUS as well. This is what SCOTUS has consistently upheld for 150 years. It comes from them; not me. As for the current Supreme Court, which has been systematically & overwhelmingly stacked with political hacks by the Republican Party since the 1980s, who can say? As to your declaration that “whatever rights may exist for non-citizens is constrained by immigration law” & that “the 14th Amendment did not change that for the current wave of “invaders,” the most polite term I can think of,” I have 2 things to say to that:
1. You didn’t think of it; right-wing media has been spinning that one for years. You are simply parroting them.
2. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Whatever immigration law that exists is constrained by that; not the other way around.
One final thought … perhaps the term “belligerent” might better apply to conservatives who not only stubbornly refuse to consider anything but what they hear from their right-wing talking head mentors, but aggressively assert it at every turn (notice I didn’t say ‘Republican lie machine’ … oops).
-John
You make a good case; the Constitution itself begins with “We the PEOPLE.” So you force me to choose between the near-infinite wisdom of the Founders and the left-liberal notion that the Constitution must be a “living document,” bending to the political winds of the moment. Heck, many even want to pack the Court to make that happen, rather than preserve any semblance of “original intent.” What is needed in the current conundrum is a means of distinguishing between “people” and “citizens.”
Now I am absolutely certain that the Founders never made the clear distinction, because while “citizen” occurs several times, there is no definition of it until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted around 1868. And they most certainly could not have envisioned, back in 1786, that we would have 10 million “people” pouring across the Mexican Border, because we didn’t HAVE a border with Mexico! Obviously, our interpretation of those terms must be settled in some fashion, and we have two: Constitutional Amendment and [usually Supreme] Court decisions.
It’s now 150 years on, and the 14th, /originally intended/ to allow citizenship for newly freed slaves, is still debated as to how it applies to people who deliberately “sneak” into the country. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” MUST have been put there for a reason, and it seems obvious to me. YMMV. Yet even the Amendment process has its faults– look at Prohibition, added and then removed. So it is with the Courts, but worse because it is much easier. Even SCOTUS gets it wrong sometimes–Roe v. Wade, now gone.
You cite some interesting cases, but I found this:
All the thousand+ habeas cases in MN have, I believe, been denied because of the precedent. Congress has acted numerous times to refine or constrain the rights of citizenship, like granting it to certain American Indian tribes, and with legislation like:
It seems that once again we are faced with the question of are we going to enforce the law, or let political opponents obstruct and strangle that enforcement?
So in summary, I guess we are each entitled to our own interpretation of “original intent” and subsequent law, but the difference may be in WHY you insist upon your interpretation as being the right one? And not the right one by (somehow, magically) correctly interpreting the legal language, but the right one from a “rule of law and justice” standpoint.